Well Obama got the nobel peace prize.

[24valvenotak]

PSiedTSi;291505 wrote:
Bingo. We benefit from corporations, but would benefit from a large network of smaller businesses working together. Sort of like the DHL model, although that might be a bad example because that obviously didn't work too well.

double posting jewb, as it were

a network of small business would be great if the vast majority of people had any sort of moral code...

[thrash]

Trafik Jamz;291501 wrote:
Not disagreeing with you just too much here thrash, you are right in that gov't should stay the fuck out of our lives (generally speaking).

As for big business not controlling our lives, I'd say they do to a pretty large extent.

Controlling your life means THEM having the final say in what you can and cannot do.

If I want to start a store to compete with Walmart/Target/Kmart how could I possibly do it?

Nothing stops you from starting the store except your own fear of failure and lack of money. Or, in some cases, city governments that refuse to zone your land for big-box retail use, as they often do for Wal-Mart.

For one I would need HUUUUUUGE capitol/investor money and second I need to be able to order at the same quantities as them to be competitive. How is a single store proprietor/start up business supposed to be able to "make it" in that environment?

I don't understand. Are you saying that the existance of Wal-Mart makes starting any other kind of business or store impossible?

Short answer: You can't. Not at their level anyway.

Yes, it is true that some dude on the internet cannot create an entity that competes with wal-mart in a day. And it is also true that if you were to say to "I am going to create a world wide network of retail outlets and defeat wal-mart, starting with 1500 new stores!", everyone would want to laugh at you but not be sure if it was appropriate to laugh at someone with such an obvious mental handicap.

There are many retail stores of all different sizes that continue to flourish inspite of the fact that Wal-Mart exists.

You are complaining about the fact that if you tried to start a store, it might fail, and that might be because there are better and cheaper options for customers who might otherwise patronize you. Guess what: if you cannot figure out how to provide more value to people than wal-mart already does, you absolutely shouldn't be in business or expect to suceed at it. Note that i said "value", not "lower prices on chinese shit".

Same goes for insurance companies. It's not extremely hard to get your company licensed to do business in ND. There are tons of supplemental companies here already (Conseco, Combined, AFLAC, American Heritage, etc....) but nobody is really applying to be a major medical provider here because BC/BS makes it virtually impossible to do so by offering HUGE discounts to schools/large businesses/etc... at below their cost of insurance. So what they do is pick up the large accounts at a loss and then pass that loss on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. By doing that they add a ton of people to their risk pool (making it slightly cheaper to do business) AND make it hard for anyone else to come in and do the same thing. Without the large accounts, it becomes extremely hard in a state the size of ND to pick up the smaller customers because you don't have the large businesses to spread the risk. IOW, it isn't worth it to another company to come in here. It's not like major medical insurance companies are knocking down the doors to do business in ND.

Why is the client pool limited to just north dakota? State law.
Why is health insurance so commonly tied to employment? Federal law.

The point to all this griping is that these are effective businesses that don't and won't have a true competitor which is bad for the general public and local economy (less so w/ BCBS than walmart as BCBS employees at least have adequate pay and good benefits).

Needs Citation.

Large businesses get a bad-rap that is often undeserved. Standard Oil acquired his near-monopoly by being better and more efficient than the companies he bought out. He showed people how much cheaper he was going to run their business and offered to buy them out, usually at a handsome profit for the existing owners and often with a reduction of prices and/or increase in service/value for the end customers. That is exactly what is supposed to happen!

I can't beleive the cognitive dissonance people have towards wal-mart. They are the #1 employer in many small towns where the economy had crashed [even prior to wal-mart showing up], and they consistently put more goods and value into peoples hands for less money than other places. And Wal-Mart has probably done more to end child prostitution in Asia than any other organization in history. How? By giving people (including, occasionally, children) jobs and dumping american cash into the hands of people who, prior to western investment, have been living the same life of backbreaking agrarian labor or servitude that has been largely unchanged for 6000 fucking years.

I personally have less problem w/ gov't regulating businesses (not controlling, but setting some guidelines/rules) than I do with them getting involved in my private life. In my opinion, small businesses built this country and big (huge) businesses are ruining it.

What you don't understand is that business of any size doesn't have any COERCIVE power without government. I beleive that you have a right to start a business, to sell what you want, for the price you want. The government by and large doesn't. You need a license, you need to pay a ream of taxes, comply with piles of stupid laws and regulations, and if you're in a politically "fun" industry you cant set your prices too high or its gouging, and you can't set them too low if its dumping.

So I think you have a right to try to do whatever you like with your assets and your business. But the government says otherwise, and when it comes down to brass tacks, they'll just shoot you to make their point.

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, cannot do anything to you, except try and do a better job than you do. Guess who wins when they do a better job? Everybody. Yes, even you. When someone beats your ass in the market, you learn a valueable lesson: namely, that you should invest your capital and labor differently than you did last time. Business failure is critical to a market economy and acheving economic efficiency, and it is one of the reason we have such pro-business, pro-bankruptcy laws in this country: we set the rules to reward risk takers.

Here's the magic. "Big Business" cannot do a terrible job unless they have a captive audience.. an audience with no other options. How do you get a captive audience? How does a bad business absolutely guarantee competitors cannot succeed or exist?

Government. It's the only way, and it's always been the only way. Even in the middle ages when you had merchant guilds controlling everything -- those guilds were backed by the force of law.

I love wal-mart. I almost never shop there, but I love it.

[thrash]

24valvenotak;291508 wrote:
i need the help of the govt to break into your house, steal your money, or put a gun to your head?

what department do i call and who do i speak to for help in these matters? are you saying that oj contacted his local rep and had help driving the bronco?

you're being silly. When you break into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

When big business breaks into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

(Except when it doesn't) - like in the case of foreclosure law, or re-possesion law, or phone/gas/cable right-of-way laws, or any other number of crazy things where the government has said that you don't actually own your property, or you aren't actually free, etc etc.

thats my whole damn point! big business OWNS the govt. the govt caters to them in every single way imaginable.

by extension, big business owns you.

You've been had. The problem isn't that business controls government and business is sometimes evil. The problem is that the government is allowed to commit evil.

The key insight of the idea of limited government -- of our founders, and "rediscovered" and espoused by the modern libertarian party -- is that the corrupt will ALWAYS try to find a way to use the power of government. The only recourse is to make the government as powerless as possible. This is the only strategy for limiting the amount of evil done against the citizens.

The guy [or big business] running the machine isn't the problem. You can knock him off, but someone else will just stand up and take over. It's the **machine **that's the problem. That's why it has to be destroyed.

[PSiedTSi]

thrash;291515 wrote:
You've been had. The problem isn't that business controls government and business is sometimes evil. The problem is that the government is allowed to commit evil.

The key insight of the idea of limited government -- of our founders, and "rediscovered" and espoused by the modern libertarian party -- is that the corrupt will ALWAYS try to find a way to use the power of government. The only recourse is to make the government as powerless as possible. This is the only strategy for limiting the amount of evil done against the citizens.

The guy [or big business] running the machine isn't the problem. You can knock him off, but someone else will just stand up and take over. It's the **machine **that's the problem. That's why it has to be destroyed.

I think thats the most complete way you've said it so far. That pretty much sums it up. It IS the big business that controls the government, because we allow it to happen, by giving the government power to do it. I think we are all pretty much saying the same thing, just different ways?

I heard this question posed while listening to Vince Flynn on the radio today: What is the best way for an American to be heard and help to make a change? I think a lot of us realize something needs to be done, but we just sit and spin our wheels not really knowing how to actually initiate/help the change that is necessary. Our **one **vote every 2 years isn't really enough to make a change. How does one actually start that revolution? We can sit here and debate all day long about whos right and whos wrong, but really it doesn't matter if none of us do anything about it...

[24valvenotak]

thrash;291515 wrote:
you're being silly. When you break into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

When big business breaks into my house, its illegal, because the law says so.

(Except when it doesn't) - like in the case of foreclosure law, or re-possesion law, or phone/gas/cable right-of-way laws, or any other number of crazy things where the government has said that you don't actually own your property, or you aren't actually free, etc etc.

You've been had. The problem isn't that business controls government and business is sometimes evil. The problem is that the government is allowed to commit evil.

The key insight of the idea of limited government -- of our founders, and "rediscovered" and espoused by the modern libertarian party -- is that the corrupt will ALWAYS try to find a way to use the power of government. The only recourse is to make the government as powerless as possible. This is the only strategy for limiting the amount of evil done against the citizens.

The guy [or big business] running the machine isn't the problem. You can knock him off, but someone else will just stand up and take over. It's the **machine **that's the problem. That's why it has to be destroyed.

edit. i give up. everyone vote thrash for president on the platform of zero govt.

[Grr]

24valvenotak;291527 wrote:
edit. i give up. everyone vote thrash for president on the platform of zero govt.

honestly thats the smartest thing ive seen you post in the last 2 months

[Trafik Jamz]

thrash;291510 wrote:
Controlling your life means THEM having the final say in what you can and cannot do.

They don't have final say, but they do have a lot of influence on where many people buy things....especially the middle class and poor. The good is that they sell things incredibly cheap. The bad is they sell things so cheap that none of their competitors can even come close to competing.

Nothing stops you from starting the store except your own fear of failure and lack of money. Or, in some cases, city governments that refuse to zone your land for big-box retail use, as they often do for Wal-Mart.

Let's say I wanted to start a large store similar to walmart....selling similar products at similar prices. How would you suggest doing that? I'm talking ONE store, not a national chain. Just a single store that can sell Widget "A" for the same price as Walmart (For example, there are some brands of electronics that I can buy that I allegedly get the best price available....and Walmart sells for less than my cost.) No one cares about service anymore, so you really can't count that as the reason people will come to you. Price & Convenience are the only two real factors in business anymore. And if you can't compete on price, it really isn't all that convenient.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the existance of Wal-Mart makes starting any other kind of business or store impossible?

Name one independent grocery store in Fargo that is doing well, living the dream. Asian-American market is the only independent store I can even think of anymore, the rest compete only because they are part of a national distribution network.

Yes, it is true that some dude on the internet cannot create an entity that competes with wal-mart in a day. And it is also true that if you were to say to "I am going to create a world wide network of retail outlets and defeat wal-mart, starting with 1500 new stores!", everyone would want to laugh at you but not be sure if it was appropriate to laugh at someone with such an obvious mental handicap.

You are right, I can not start a store to compete with them in a day. But if I can not compete with them for even one day, how am I to exist long enough to compete with them ever?

There are many retail stores of all different sizes that continue to flourish inspite of the fact that Wal-Mart exists.

Yes, specialty shops will continue to do well, but they will seldom see the success that the large superstores see, they will scrape by. There are some companies that will never sell to Walmart, but if you wanted to develop into a super store (or even a grocery & low priced clothing store) you'd never ever be able to do it and survive against them. (Nash Finch and Super Value have a hell of a time staying in business with Walmart around)

You are complaining about the fact that if you tried to start a store, it might fail, and that might be because there are better and cheaper options for customers who might otherwise patronize you. Guess what: if you cannot figure out how to provide more value to people than wal-mart already does, you absolutely shouldn't be in business or expect to suceed at it. Note that i said "value", not "lower prices on chinese shit".

Since the advent of the internet, no one gives a shit about value (aka service). If they did they wouldn't buy everything on ebay or amazon (neither of which provide value other than convenience). Small retail business is in serious jeopardy in the US, not because of people scared to take risks but because they either don't have the money to get started or because they can't cash flow and show a profitable business plan that will get them the start-up equity (bank loans/lines of credit) they need to make it in business.

Why is the client pool limited to just north dakota? State law.

Funny, I have BCBS of California (though BCBS of CA is not licensed to do business in ND) and I know a good number of people from MN who have BCBS of ND.

Why is health insurance so commonly tied to employment? Federal law.

AFAIK the only insurance businesses are required to carry is Workers Compensation Insurance to compensate employees should they be hurt while on the job. And liability insurance in case they screw something up and get sued. http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/employee_required_insurance.htm

Needs Citation.

Large businesses get a bad-rap that is often undeserved. Standard Oil acquired his near-monopoly by being better and more efficient than the companies he bought out. He showed people how much cheaper he was going to run their business and offered to buy them out, usually at a handsome profit for the existing owners and often with a reduction of prices and/or increase in service/value for the end customers. That is exactly what is supposed to happen!

Was that a wikipedia stat? Looks like it...also looks like it needs citation.

I can't beleive the cognitive dissonance people have towards wal-mart. They are the #1 employer in many small towns where the economy had crashed [even prior to wal-mart showing up], and they consistently put more goods and value into peoples hands for less money than other places. And Wal-Mart has probably done more to end child prostitution in Asia than any other organization in history. How? By giving people (including, occasionally, children) jobs and dumping american cash into the hands of people who, prior to western investment, have been living the same life of backbreaking agrarian labor or servitude that has been largely unchanged for 6000 fucking years.

You also realize that they tend to destroy small businesses in their wake due to their enormous purchasing power and fairly ruthless business practices. I'm not saying they are all bad, hell I shop there because the prices are low myself (hypocrite, I know) I have no doubt that they provide a good benefit for a lot of people, however they are as close to slave labor as you can get in this country.

Good read from UC Berkley (yeah, I know liberal socialist college..blah blah blah) http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf

What you don't understand is that business of any size doesn't have any COERCIVE power without government. I beleive that you have a right to start a business, to sell what you want, for the price you want. The government by and large doesn't. You need a license, you need to pay a ream of taxes, comply with piles of stupid laws and regulations, and if you're in a politically "fun" industry you cant set your prices too high or its gouging, and you can't set them too low if its dumping.

I understand it just fine. I came from the highly regulated Fire & Security Industry and currently work in the highly regulated Insurance and Finance industry. Every regulation that is there (that I've dealt with) on both is a good thing....and both could use more regulation as I see shit every day that makes me wonder how the hell it can be legal. I also understand that 99% of those regulations actually come from the industry recommendations.

So I think you have a right to try to do whatever you like with your assets and your business. But the government says otherwise, and when it comes down to brass tacks, they'll just shoot you to make their point.

Aside from illegal activity (drugs, etc...), where does the gov say I can't start a business?

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, cannot do anything to you, except try and do a better job than you do. Guess who wins when they do a better job? Everybody. Yes, even you. When someone beats your ass in the market, you learn a valueable lesson: namely, that you should invest your capital and labor differently than you did last time. Business failure is critical to a market economy and acheving economic efficiency, and it is one of the reason we have such pro-business, pro-bankruptcy laws in this country: we set the rules to reward risk takers.

I agree with you to a point, and where I disagree I've already pointed out.

Here's the magic. "Big Business" cannot do a terrible job unless they have a captive audience.. an audience with no other options. How do you get a captive audience? How does a bad business absolutely guarantee competitors cannot succeed or exist?

Government. It's the only way, and it's always been the only way. Even in the middle ages when you had merchant guilds controlling everything -- those guilds were backed by the force of law.

I love wal-mart. I almost never shop there, but I love it.

I'll be the first to say that Walmart does a great job of price negotiating, but the problem is that with their enormous buying power, you'll never get close to the same deals as they do. You'll never be able to fully compete in any sector they are in unless you are close to their size/buying power. How do you get to that size if you can't compete until you are that size?

The American people were dumb enough to vote for Obama, what makes you think they are smart enough to recognize that the best value is not necessarily the best price?

[24valvenotak]

Grr;291557 wrote:
honestly thats the smartest thing ive seen you post in the last 2 months

its funny how you are such a nice guy when you are in MY house or loitering around the shop but when you get on the net you are a total douche nozzle. blow me. her too.

[PSiedTSi]

Trafik Jamz;291561 wrote:
Name one independent grocery store in Fargo that is doing well, living the dream. Asian-American market is the only independent store I can even think of anymore, the rest compete only because they are part of a national distribution network.

That doesn't even count, that is a specialty type store that sells different things to a different market.

Trafik Jamz;291561 wrote:
(Nash Finch and Super Value have a hell of a time staying in business with Walmart around)

I do disagree here, atleast about SuperValu. They were able to buy out #2 or #3 in the world, can't remember specifically(Albertsons), so they are doing just great. Nash on the other hand has always had trouble supplying the smaller rural stores. They have a much more up and down present/future. Those stores end up running back to SuperValu, then Nash recovers a bit, offers a better price(that they can't really afford), and the stores jump again. Aka Nash is a retarded company and isn't positioned for the long haul. I know the area Hornbacher's weren't hurt by the opening of the first Supercenter, or even the Target mini store. There are 6 stores in like 3 miles(CW, Target, Walmart, SunmartX2, Hornbachers), and the only one that closed was a Sunmart. That was a little off on a tangent, just thought I would point that out.

Trafik Jamz;291561 wrote:
I'll be the first to say that Walmart does a great job of price negotiating, but the problem is that with their enormous buying power, you'll never get close to the same deals as they do. You'll never be able to fully compete in any sector they are in unless you are close to their size/buying power. How do you get to that size if you can't compete until you are that size?

It's not called "negotiating" when you tell X supplier that "price x" is what you will pay for something, if you don't get that, you will just ship it up from Arkansas where they will give them "price x". I believe they call that underselling. Specific example first hand: Walmart Supercenter opens in DL, the Coca-Cola supplier comes in and says this is the price we charge for all the stores we supply. Walmart says to bad, we want this price, if not, we'll ship it in and you'll be sorry. I heard a stat awhile back that for every job that Walmart creates, 2 jobs are lost...

The Walmart founding premise was great, and Sam Walton had the right idea. I bet if he were alive to see how it really worked out, he'd be upset.

[zbrown]

StangerBanger96;291126 wrote:
Like I heard wherever it was...Can't wait to see Miss America/Miss Universe win it next year since they always promote world peace and nuclear disarmament.

lol.... do you know who is judging this event next year??

they got rid of the vile sodomite (perez hilton), and got someone with just a tiny bit of contrasting life views.... haha

[zbrown]

Does anyone actually filter through an entire copy/paste chuck post??

[24valvenotak]

zbrown;291595 wrote:
Does anyone actually filter through an entire copy/paste chuck post??

more often then not they are more satisfying then the ever present, "obama is black so he must be terrible" posts....

[thrash]

holy crap. this turned into tl;dr WAY more than usual

PSiedTSi;291521 wrote:
I heard this question posed while listening to Vince Flynn on the radio today: What is the best way for an American to be heard and help to make a change? I think a lot of us realize something needs to be done, but we just sit and spin our wheels not really knowing how to actually initiate/help the change that is necessary. Our **one **vote every 2 years isn't really enough to make a change. How does one actually start that revolution? We can sit here and debate all day long about whos right and whos wrong, but really it doesn't matter if none of us do anything about it...

I don't know. I can tell you what I've been doing:

• trying to engage with people to talk about what our government used to be and what it is, and about the proper role and function of governance.

• emailing & calling dorgan, conrad, and pomeroy about federal issues that they can impact [I see now that Dorgan is a co-sponsor of SB 604. He wasn't when I emailed him about it a while back asking him to do such.]

• emailing my state reps (district 21) about stuff relevant to ND. Only senator Nelson has ever gotten back to me. Jasper Schneider has never answered any question from me or my neighbor. Zaiser lives 1 block from me and has enver answered an email.

• learning that my state reps aren't very responsive, and may be politically vulnerable.
  i've done a trivial amount of finance research. The ND state legislature is divided up into districts of about 14,000 people, and in D21 where i live [downtown fargo], the two winning reps raised about $5k and $20k, respectivley, of campaign funds. That's plausible money right there. I tried to talk a friend into running but his wife talked him out of it

As an aside, D21 votes democrat across the board at a 2:1 ratio. Jasper just got a federal job so I am not sure what's actually happening to his seat.

Changing gears a bit, i've also been:

• buying guns, and trying to learn how to use them
• convincing my friends to buy guns [3 new gun-owners in the last year!]

Apart from trying to engage with people about ideology or issues, i think there are a few more passive things that may count for something. Sometimes just being a "one" in a big bag of things that get counted is useful. I went to the Fargo tea party thing a while back and it was pretty... not worthwhile. But I think that for the benefit of those attending, and for those who were driving by, be they for, against, or just curious about what was going on... having a larger turnout was better than having a small turn out. So i went to that event not figuring there'd be any goal, point, or real value in doing so, but in retrospect, not going would have guaranteed a lack of value, and not going would have said "i'm not serious enough about this to even walk a few blocks and stand for an hour".

So i think being counted is important at other times and in other situations.. not just on voting day.

Another "be counted" thing has to do with certain types of firearms paperwork that citizens can undertake. Your 4447s are allegedly destroyed after the check comes back, but i figure uncle sam will "forget to forget" sometimes. I chatted with the local ATF office last week and got some paperwork from them for a type 3 FFL. And of course there are some nice ID cards you can get from a variety of states that have a reasonably thorough documentation requirement and restore some of your basic self-defense rights [and responsibilities]. There are a lot of government entities that see that paperwork and hold on to it.

The bad side of this kind of thing is of course: suppose somebody somewhere decides to start going after gun owners. They're going to know my name, address, etc. They've got all that on file.

But suppose enough people get "on file". Then when some dopey politician says "Ok, i want you to round up all of the wierdos with carry permits", imagine that the local sherriff says "that's over 30,000 people, there's no way we can do it". -- That's a good thing. I have no fantasies about me coming out alive in any scenario where any government entity decides it has a beef with me. They'll win. So the strategy here is to make the initiation of force or action against me seem... expensive to the entity seeking to undertake it. Not because I'm so awesome or antying like that.. but because there would be so many people like me that they'd have to go after.

Alot of our most insidious violations of the constituion start with drumming up popular support for something. Almost everyone can agree that it's ok to stick it to 1% of the population - on just about anything. Taxes and CEO pay arguments tend to bear this out. So the goal is to make sure that people who are armed and have a "there may be circumstances where i shoot back" mentality are too numerous for the government to feel comfortable starting anything with.

So the short version is: I haven't really done shit.

The best hope we have is to get a new breed of candidate in peoples faces at all levels of public office. You're correct that voting every few years for the same old bozos isn't going to fix anything. "We", the freedom oriented, first need to decide what we mostly agree on and what we can mostly look past where we disagree, and then "we" need to develop a deep pipeline of people that we'd be willing to vote for for things like mayor, or city council person, or state legislator, on up the hierarchy. And then those people need to start figuring out how to campaign and win elections. We need to find them, promote them, support them financially, and help them get elected. And then we need to hold them accountable with twice the ferocity we subject the current guys to.

The paradox of this is that its hard to go from being "some dude" into the running for "president", and so the normal path is that people start in local politics, figure some things out, and work their way up. But the paradox is that most people don't know or care about local politics as compared to higher level politics. The problems they want to fix are problems at a high level, but to get their start, they need to enter at the bottom. It wouldn't make any sense for me to run for mayor because I think Fargo is run pretty well. What would my platform be? And could I be honest with myself and voters if i were to say "Not really interested in you or this job, but i need to do my residency before I get a real job"? That's shortchanging everyone.

I guess developing good people and getting them elected is really the only thing we can "do". That's the "within the system" approach, and that's what groups like CampaignForLiberty are trying to focus on.

The outside-the-system approach... the one where nobody thinks we can just vote the crooks out of office.. isn't one where any of us really have a say in how it happens or what it looks like. It's awful to contemplate, and easy to be naive about. I can buy a bunch of instruments of death, and hopefully some day understand how to use them proficiently, but that's less than 1% of the problem. For a revolution to be effective, you actually need to have won the mindshare of the majority of the people. Everytime you get some compound of extremists that are really upset at the feds and want to be left alone, the feds swoop in, murder the shit out of all of them, and then own the public opinion afterwards about how they were religious nutcases, or child abusers, or whatever. They are *always *marginalized and so it doesn't matter in the public eye that they were killed in cold blood by a government who's only job is supposed to be protecting their life and liberty.

The point is that you need to build the mindshare and support of most people whether you solve this problem with the ballot box or the ammo box.

Robert Heinlein [the author that wrote "Starship Troopers"] wrote a sci-fi book called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", which goes into great detail about how the residents of the Moon plot, conspire, and ultimately overthrow the autocratic government on the moon (which is beholden to planet Earth) and fight Earth for their independence. The first half of the book talks about some of the social engineering and propaganda they do, how to build networks of conspirators that can survive spies and leaks, how they shaped public opinion of their insurgency, and how they ultimately win their independence. It's a fun and accessible book that gets you thinking.

Interesting link, for guys that served or know someone who does:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/

[Trafik Jamz]

zbrown;291595 wrote:
Does anyone actually filter through an entire copy/paste chuck post??

Find a single copy/paste in that last post, $5 says you can't.

[zbrown]

24valvenotak;291598 wrote:
more often then not they are more satisfying then the ever present, "obama is black so he must be terrible" posts....

The obama threads have gotten old.... I obviously don't agree with his policy, and his mixed race is irrelevant.

These threads are pointless because anyone who likes politics and is active in the thread is never going to persuade someone of a contrasting view...... and the ones who could care less about politics are not even reading the thread so...

Trafik Jamz;291610 wrote:
Find a single copy/paste in that last post, $5 says you can't.

Did i say anything about the last post??

[DaveH]

zbrown;291613 wrote:
These threads are pointless because

I usually find these threads interesting. I like to try to figure out the thought process of the left leaning folks. I haven't figured it out yet, but maybe someday....

:icon_geek:

[Grr]

thrash;291607 wrote:
So the short version is: I haven't really done shit.

I can tell you a couple things i did just this week

called and/or sent out emails to senators/congressman and district reps. A total of 33 in all

Had 2 approx 20 min discussions with a group of 5 people discussing fundamental points of the constitution and explaining to them how it is being usurped.

Myself donated an undisclosed amount to Michelle Bachmann, and garnered another $260 from other people as well. If you do not know Pelosi has her as her #1 enemy to defeat in the next elections and are raising a large amount of money. Im not particularly worried about her losing as she is, in my opinion the closest thing to a perfect politician i have ever encountered. I had a discussion with her one day in St Cloud when i ran into her for almost 20 min, and i have to say i will do anything i can to make sure she remains in office, either the current one or one much higher.

It isnt that difficult to get this stuff done but i put in a couple 14hr days this week and didnt even realize i had done anything till you posted that

[Trafik Jamz]

zbrown;291613 wrote:
These threads are pointless because anyone who likes politics and is active in the thread is never going to persuade someone of a contrasting view...... and the ones who could care less about politics are not even reading the thread so...

Did i say anything about the last post??

Actually I've probably moved more to the right because of thrash and I engage in these because (like Dave said) I like to see what the other side is thinking and why. Sometimes I present the leftist side of an argument, even though my gut tells me I'm more center/right on it, just to get another perspective.

Unfortunately, for every post of thrash's pushing me further right, I get redneck racists claiming they are conservatives calling for harm/death to the president...if not calling for it outright, saying they would be extremely happy if it did happen, and that pushes me back to the left because I really don't want to be associated with people of that mindset.

You guys seem to be all bent about Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize because of his ideas, saying he hasn't done enough to warrant it, but I say that if that is the case, you have no right to call him a Nazi Socialist because he really hasn't done a whole lot to take away your civil liberties (the only socialist program that I've really seen PASS in congress was the takeover of GM via a very large loan...a bailout that began under Bush for those keeping track at home...along with TARP, also a Bush era plan).

Yes, the healthcare reform may end up with a socialist tinge to it (again, not in favor of a public option) and yes, there will be taxpayer money going into it, but its not like it is something new/unique to Obama. The fed has poured in BILLIONS of dollars every year for healthcare for many years...in fact our gov't pays more per capita for healthcare than any other "socialized" medicine country. So to pin that squarely on Obama is a LOOOOOOOONG stretch, and if I'm not mistaken, the bill that is currently in the Senate would decrease the amount of spending by the Fed instead of increase it.

**Short version of what I wrote: Obama was neither deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize nor the label as a Nazi...because both are based on possible ideas/goals, and not necessarily in reality.

**As for the copy/paste, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if/when I copy paste, I try and give credit where it is due. Do I forget on occasion? Yes. Sorry for not being perfect.

[MisterCMK]

Trafik Jamz;291610 wrote:
Find a single copy/paste in that last post, $5 says you can't.

That's a first...

[zbrown]

DaveH;291622 wrote:
I usually find these threads interesting. I like to try to figure out the thought process of the left leaning folks. I haven't figured it out yet, but maybe someday....

:icon_geek:

Good luck, the way i figure it will take more than just one lifetime